David Brock accuses the NY Times of...anti-Clinton bias?

David Brock, the chairman of both Media Matters for America and American Bridge super PAC, has written an open letter to The New York TImes expressing his "concern about a recent string of reports and columns... that have done nothing but use false pretenses to cast a shadow on Bill and Hillary Clinton."

Brock highlights the Times' Aug. 13 report on "unease" over finances and management at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation ("an exercise in evidence-free speculation," according to Brock) and two recent columns from Maureen Dowd that Brock says "reinforce her long pattern of using hollow caricatures to attack the Clintons (and the former first family in general)."

Brock then calls on the Times to: "Correct the record regarding errors of fact and context in the Foundation news story... Refrain from negatively pre-judging the Clintons in the manner of your political editor... Correct the anti-Clinton animus consistently exhibited by one of your columnists; and... Resist the temptation to create purely speculative news in your new Clinton 'beat.'"

Brock calls the Times' "unease" over finances "evidence free speculation." Meanwhile, the Times' rival, the New York Post, reports that the Clinton Foundation has spent $50 million on travel since 2003:

Bill Clinton's foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit's tax forms reveal.

The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That's enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year.

That overall figure includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.

The Clinton Global Health Initiative spent another $730,000 on travel, while the Clinton Health Action Initiative (CHAI) spent $7.2 million on travel.

CHAI also spent $2.9 million on meetings and training, according to the report, conducted by the Little Rock, Ark. Accounting firm BDK CPA's and Advisors. All three entities have global reach, while CHAI has the most staff.

It's impossible to discern from tax filings how the total travel costs were reached, although the former president is known to rack up his personal miles on private jets.

Wealthy businessman John Catsimatitis has lent aircraft to Clinton and to the foundation multiple times for travel, including Clinton's recent trip to Africa along with daughter, Chelsea.

Clinton sometimes uses Catsimatitis' Boeing 727, opting on other flights to use a smaller Gulfstream jet.

Sort of gives a whole new meaning to "globe trotting."

The Times' knows full well these revelations won't hurt Hillary a bit, which is why they feel safe about publishing them. No one cares much - or is very surprised - about Clintonian shenanigans. Brock is being hysterical - and unintentionally funny - by accusing the Times of being anti-Clinton. The totality of the Times coverage of both Hillary and Bill has been glowing, approaching sycophantic. To posit the idea they've turned against the golden couple is ludicrous.

David Brock, the chairman of both Media Matters for America and American Bridge super PAC, has written an open letter to The New York TImes expressing his "concern about a recent string of reports and columns... that have done nothing but use false pretenses to cast a shadow on Bill and Hillary Clinton."

Brock highlights the Times' Aug. 13 report on "unease" over finances and management at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation ("an exercise in evidence-free speculation," according to Brock) and two recent columns from Maureen Dowd that Brock says "reinforce her long pattern of using hollow caricatures to attack the Clintons (and the former first family in general)."

Brock then calls on the Times to: "Correct the record regarding errors of fact and context in the Foundation news story... Refrain from negatively pre-judging the Clintons in the manner of your political editor... Correct the anti-Clinton animus consistently exhibited by one of your columnists; and... Resist the temptation to create purely speculative news in your new Clinton 'beat.'"

Brock calls the Times' "unease" over finances "evidence free speculation." Meanwhile, the Times' rival, the New York Post, reports that the Clinton Foundation has spent $50 million on travel since 2003:

Bill Clinton's foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit's tax forms reveal.

The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That's enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year.

That overall figure includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.

The Clinton Global Health Initiative spent another $730,000 on travel, while the Clinton Health Action Initiative (CHAI) spent $7.2 million on travel.

CHAI also spent $2.9 million on meetings and training, according to the report, conducted by the Little Rock, Ark. Accounting firm BDK CPA's and Advisors. All three entities have global reach, while CHAI has the most staff.

It's impossible to discern from tax filings how the total travel costs were reached, although the former president is known to rack up his personal miles on private jets.

Wealthy businessman John Catsimatitis has lent aircraft to Clinton and to the foundation multiple times for travel, including Clinton's recent trip to Africa along with daughter, Chelsea.

Clinton sometimes uses Catsimatitis' Boeing 727, opting on other flights to use a smaller Gulfstream jet.

Sort of gives a whole new meaning to "globe trotting."

The Times' knows full well these revelations won't hurt Hillary a bit, which is why they feel safe about publishing them. No one cares much - or is very surprised - about Clintonian shenanigans. Brock is being hysterical - and unintentionally funny - by accusing the Times of being anti-Clinton. The totality of the Times coverage of both Hillary and Bill has been glowing, approaching sycophantic. To posit the idea they've turned against the golden couple is ludicrous.